As the new NAMHO conservation officer, a qualified archaeologist and someone
who has been a member of both caving and mining history clubs/groups as well
as someone who has worked with Ian Cowburn and some of his French colegues i
am probably in a good position to join this discussion.

I have to agree with Ian to some extent, there has been a lot of damage done
to underground sites but rather than being symtomatic of a "couldn't care
less" attitude the damage can often be traced to the work done by local
groups working with good intentions but no professional advice. Why? because
the advice is not available?, or because it is not sought by the amateurs
who generally consider themselves to be the experts on the subject? Local
groups might know more about a site than any number of experts from English
Heritage or similar organistions but they do not generally know how to
recognise and record archaeological evidence and then present it as a
competent archive document.

In order to help groups produce meningful survey reports that will sit
comfortably in local and national sites and monuments records i have drafted
a guide to the archaeological surveying of underground mine sites. As has
already reported this was presented at the NAMHO meeting at the weekend. A
draft will be available shortly on the NAMHO website for comment and
consultation. Survey in this context means a written as well as drawn record
of a site or features. I am very aware that underground fieldwork is more
likely to be carried out by ameteur groups and so this document includes
information on why detailed records should be produced and what should
happen to the records.

I have also redrafted the code of practice for the collection of artifacts
underground in order to meet current archaeological practice.

Professional or academic advice is availible and should be sought.
Archaeology is reffered to as an "unrepeatable experiment", often people are
not aware that there is recoverable information until it is lost, then it is
to late.

I have to disagree with Dave Hardwick's comment that cave and mine
archaeology are the same. There are important differences. In caves
archaeology is usually buried and therefore to some extent protected. In
mines there are a lot of portable finds which are very vunerable and often
moved or removed without recording. If we are lucky they find their way into
museums but in my experience rarely if ever have any professional
conservation work done on them and are often very poorly documented. Who
will know where an artifact came from when old Fred who collected it dies or
leaves the club etc. Result an artifact which is useless as a research aid.

The underground sections of mines are like caves an archaeological resource
that can suffer greatly from visitor pressure. There is no easy answer to
this but in the caving world i understand that it has been found that the
problem is worse in a small number of popular caves. Therefore the sites or
areas which are visited less frequently survive in a better condition. Any
visit to Smallcleugh beyond the trade routes demonstrates the extent of the
problem. The caving practice of marking off areas with tape apears to help
where i have seen it in both mines and caves, but the key to the whole issue
is education and that is an area that need work.

Mineral collectors are a different issue and best left to another time.

Martin Roe

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com